ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Efficacy and Safety of 60 W Versus 90 W, 4-s Radiofrequency Applications to the Esophagus-Adjacent Left Atrial Posterior Wall During Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In very high-power (51-90 W), short-duration (4 s) radiofrequency applications (QMODE+) using the QDOT MICRO catheter, the optimal power setting at the left atrial (LA) posterior wall adjacent to the esophagus for treating atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. Objective: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 60 W versus 90 W QMODE+ radiofrequency applications in the periesophageal region. Methods: Fifty AF patients were randomized into two groups based on the QMODE+ power applied to the periesophageal region: 60 W ( Results: Median contact force was significantly higher in the 60 W group than in the 90 W group (12.9 g [IQR 10.2, 15.8] in the 60 W group and 10.9 g [IQR 8.4, 14.2] in the 90 W group, Conclusion: 60 W and 90 W QMODE+ RF applications for the periesophageal region achieved comparable rates of acute conduction block, endoscopy-detected esophageal injury, and 12-month AT recurrence-free survival, although contact force was significantly higher in the 60 W group. Trial Registration: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT); jRCT1072230115 (Registered on February 8, 2024).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.